Prognostic impact of splenectomy on gastric cancer: results of the Korean Gastric Cancer Study Group

Systemic Review and Meta-analysis of Impact of Splenectomy for Advanced Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND/AIM

Prophylactic splenectomy has shown no inferiority for tumors not invading the greater curvature side. Despite this, the clinical impact of prophylactic splenectomy for proximal advanced gastric cancer is not clear. This review aimed to clarify the impact of splenectomy for advanced gastric cancer in the upper third of the stomach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted based on PubMed and EMBASE databases. The following search terms were used: "gastric cancer" OR "splenectomy" OR upper third of the stomach" OR preservation of the spleen.

RESULTS

Out of 765 articles, 18 studies (combined n=6,341) were included in the analysis. Four randomized controlled trials (RCT) and eight retrospective studies suggested the benefits of spleen-preserving gastrectomy. Six retrospective studies showed no significant benefit of spleen-preserving gastrectomy. Prophylactic splenectomy showed a close association with a higher incidence of postoperative morbidity (pancreatic fistula and anastomotic leakage) with no concomitant improvement in overall survival. Prophylactic splenectomy should not be routinely performed and RCTs are necessary to confirm the impact of splenectomy for cN(+) at the splenic hilum tumors and tumors invading the greater curvature.

Necessity of prophylactic splenic hilum lymph node clearance for middle and upper third gastric cancer: a network meta-analysis

Background

It remains controversial whether prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance is necessary for gastric cancer. Thus, the present study aims to investigate the impact of prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance on the perioperative complications and prognosis of upper and middle third gastric cancer.

Methods

A network meta-analysis to identify both direct and indirect evidence with respect to the comparison of gastrectomy alone (G-A), gastrectomy combination with splenectomy (G + S) and gastrectomy combination with spleen-preserving splenic hilar dissection (G + SPSHD) was conducted. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for studies published before September 2018. Perioperative complications and overall survival were analyzed. Hazard ratios (HR) were extracted from the publications on the basis of reported values or were extracted from survival curves by established methods.

Results

Ten retrospective studies involving 2565 patients were included. In the direct comparison analyses, G-A showed comparable 5-year overall survival rate (HR: 1.1, 95%CI: 0.97–1.3) but lower total complication rate (OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.17–0.77) compared with G + S. Similarly, the 5-year overall survival rate between G + SPSHD and G + S was comparable (HR: 1.1, 95%CI: 0.92–1.4), while the total complication rate of G + SPSHD was lower than that of G + S (OR: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.28–0.88). In the indirect comparison analyses, both the 5-year overall survival rate (HR: 1.0, 95%CI: 0.78–1.3) and total complication rate (OR: 0.75, 95%CI: 0.29–1.9) were comparable between G-A and G + SPSHD.

Conclusions

Prophylactic No.10 lymph node clearance was not recommended for treatment of upper and middle third gastric cancer.

Disadvantages of Complete No. 10 Lymph Node Dissection in Gastric Cancer and the Possibility of Spleen-Preserving Dissection: Review

Splenic hilar lymph node dissection has been the standard treatment for advanced proximal gastric cancer. Splenectomy is typically performed as part of this procedure. However, splenectomy has some disadvantages, such as increased risk of postoperative complications, especially pancreatic fistula. Moreover, patients who underwent splenectomy are vulnerable to potentially fatal infection caused by encapsulated bacteria. Furthermore, several studies have shown an association of splenectomy with cancer development and increased risk of thromboembolic events. Therefore, splenectomy should be avoided if it does not confer a distinct oncological advantage. Most studies that compared patients who underwent splenectomy and those who did not failed to demonstrate the efficacy of splenectomy. Based on the results of a randomized controlled trial conducted in Japan, prophylactic dissection with splenectomy is no longer recommended in patients with gastric cancer with no invasion of the greater curvature. However, patients with greater curvature invasion or those with remnant gastric cancer still need to undergo splenectomy to facilitate splenic hilar node dissection. Spleen-preserving splenic hilar node dissection is a new procedure that may help delink splenic hilar node dissection and splenectomy. In this review, we examine the evidence pertaining to the efficacy and disadvantages of splenectomy. We discuss the possibility of spleen-preserving surgery for prophylactic splenic hilar node dissection to overcome the disadvantages of splenectomy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of splenectomy in gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The role of splenectomy for patients with gastric cancer still remains controversial. We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and long-term oncological outcomes of splenectomy for patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 1997 to October 2018. The results were analyzed according to predefined criteria. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

In total, 16 studies with 4457 patients, including 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), were analyzed. The meta-analysis showed the splenectomy group was associated with higher rates of overall postoperative complication, anastomosis leakage, abdominal abscess, and pancreatic fistula. Regarding long-term oncological outcomes, the splenectomy group showed lower 5-year overall survival (OS) and higher recurrence rates on subgroup analysis for the nRCTs. No significant difference was observed in the 5-year OS and recurrence rates between the two groups on subgroup analysis for the RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Splenectomy increases postoperative complications without clearly improving long-term prognosis.

Adverse prognostic impact of splenectomy on survival in gastric carcinoma patients: Regression and propensity score matching analysis of 1074 patients

BACKGROUNDS

Patients with proximal gastric carcinoma undergo total gastrectomy with concomitant splenectomy to ensure the complete removal of splenic hilar lymph nodes. However, the impact of splenectomy on survival remains uncertain. This study aimed to investigate the impact of splenectomy on survival among patients with gastric carcinoma.

METHODS

Of 1074 patients who underwent total gastrectomy for proximal gastric carcinoma between 2006 and 2014, 229 patients underwent concomitant splenectomy or pancreaticosplenectomy during surgery. We investigated the prognostic impact of splenectomy using a regression and propensity score matched model.

RESULTS

The splenectomy and non-splenectomy groups differed in many baseline characteristics, including tumor stage, and had respective crude 5-year survival rates of 55% and 81% (p <0.001). In a multivariate analysis adjusted for TNM stage and other prognostic factors, splenectomy was an independent poor prognostic factor for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-2.51) and disease-free survival (HR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.24-2.10). A survival evaluation stratified by TNM stage showed that splenectomy adversely affected survival among patients with stage III, but not stage I, II, and IV disease. In the propensity score-matched sample, splenectomy group also showed significantly worse overall survival (5-year, 65% vs. 79%, p = 0.010) and disease-free survival (5-year, 55% vs. 72%, p = 0.025) and was an independent poor prognostic factor in a multivariate analysis adjusting TNM stage and other prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Splenectomy adversely affects survival, particularly among patients with stage III gastric carcinoma, and should be avoided unless there is direct invasion to the splenic hilum.

Complications and their correlation with prognosis in patients undergoing total gastrectomy with splenectomy for treatment of proximal advanced gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Spleen-preserving surgery is a mainstay in the treatment of proximal advanced gastric cancer according to the results of several clinical studies. However, total gastrectomy with splenectomy (TGS) still plays a role in the treatment of aggressive tumors invading the greater curvature line or adjacent structures, in spite of its high morbidity. The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for morbidity and the association between the occurrence of postoperative complications and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 430 patients with gastric cancer who underwent curative TGS from 1992 to 2010. In total, 134 patients encountered grade ≥III postoperative complications (C group), and risk factors for morbidity were analyzed. Patients in the C group were matched 1:1 with patients selected from among 296 patients without complications (matched non-C group, n = 134) using propensity score estimation, to compare relapse-free survival (RFS) between the two groups.

RESULTS

The overall grade ≥III complication rate was 31.2%. Multivariable analysis identified pancreatic resection (odds ratio [OR], 5.65), male sex (OR, 1.77), and an operation time of ≥240 min (OR, 1.69) as independent predictors of postoperative complications after TGS. The RFS was not significantly different between the C-group and matched non-C group (46.9% vs. 45.0%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreatic resection, male sex, and a longer operation time are risk factors for morbidity after TGS, and a precise surgical technique is required for such patients. However, postoperative complications of TGS may have little impact on long-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy for early gastric cancer. Surg Today. 2017;47:538-547. [PMID: 27549773 DOI: 10.1007/s00595-016-1401-x]

The incidence of proximal early gastric cancer (EGC) is increasing, and while laparoscopic proximal gastrectomy (LPG) has been performed as a surgical option, it is not yet the standard treatment, because there is no established common reconstruction method following proximal gastrectomy (PG). We reviewed the English-language literature to clarify the current status and problems associated with LPG in treating proximal EGC. This procedure is considered indicated for EGC located in the upper third of the stomach with clinical T1N0, but not when it can be treated endoscopically. No operative mortality or conversion to open surgery was reported in our review, suggesting that this procedure is technically feasible. The most frequent postoperative complication involved problems with anastomoses, possibly caused by the technical complexity of the reconstruction. Although various reconstruction methods following open PG (OPG) and LPG have been reported, there is no standard reconstruction method. Well-designed multicenter, randomized, controlled, prospective trials to evaluate the various reconstruction methods are necessary.

[Spleen-preserving D2-lymphodissection in gastric cancer surgery]

Oncological advisability of spleen removal during surgical treatment of gastric cancer is arguable at present time. It is presented technique of spleen-preserving D2-lymphodissection used for gastric body and proximal part cancer which was applied in 155 patients. Control group included 197 patients who underwent gastrectomy with splenectomy. Spleen-preserving D2-lymphodissection increased duration of surgery but decreased frequency of subdiaphragmatic abscess and pancreatic fistulas and duration of hospital stay. 5-years survival (Kaplan-Meier) was 59% in main group, in control group - 55% (p>0.05). We consider that spleen-preserving D2-lymphodissection is radical and safe surgical method for locally advanced cancer of gastric body and proximal part.

Role of 3DCT in laparoscopic total gastrectomy with spleen-preserving splenic lymph node dissection

AIM: To investigate whether computed tomography with 3D imaging (3DCT) can reduce the risks associated with laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-control study evaluating the efficacy of preoperative 3DCT of the splenic vascular anatomy on surgical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic hilar lymph node (LN) dissection for upper- or middle-third gastric cancer. The clinical records of 312 patients with upper- or middle-third gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic total gastrectomy with spleen-preserving splenic lymph node dissection in our hospital from January 2010 to June 2013 were collected, and the patients were divided into two groups (group 3DCT vs group NO-3DCT) depending on whether they underwent 3DCT or not. Clinicopathologic characteristics, operative and postoperative measures, the number of retrieved LNs, and complications were compared between these two groups. Patients were further compared regarding operative and postoperative measures, the number of retrieved LNs, and complications when subdivided by body mass index ( ≥ 23 and < 23 kg/m²) and the number of operations performed by their surgeon (≤ 40 vs > 40).

RESULTS: The mean numbers of retrieved splenic hilar LNs were similar in patients in group 3DCT and group NO-3DCT (2.85 ± 2.33 vs 2.48 ± 2.18, P > 0.05). The operation time and blood loss at the splenic hilum were lower in the patients in group 3DCT (P < 0.05 each). The postoperative recovery time and complication rates were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05 each). Subgroup analysis showed that the operation time at the splenic hilum in patients with a BMI ≥ 23 kg/m² was significantly shorter in patients in group 3DCT than in group NO-3DCT (20.27 ± 5.84 min vs 26.17 ± 11.01 min, P = 0.003). In patients with a BMI < 23 kg/m², the overall operation time (171.8 ± 26.32 min vs 188.09 ± 52.63 min, P = 0.028), operation time at the splenic hilum (19.39 ± 5.46 min vs 23.74 ± 9.56 min, P = 0.001), and blood loss at the splenic hilum (13.27 ± 4.96 mL vs 17.98 ± 8.12 mL, P = 0.000) were significantly lower in patients in group 3DCT than in group NO-3DCT. After 40 operations, the operation time (18.63 ± 4.40 min vs 23.85 ± 7.92 min, P = 0.000) and blood loss (13.10 ± 4.17 mL vs 15.10 ± 4.42 mL, P = 0.005) at the splenic hilum were significantly lower in patients who underwent 3DCT, but there were no significant between-group differences prior to 40 operations.

CONCLUSION: 3DCT is critical for surgical guidance to reduce the risks of splenic LN dissection. This method may be important in safely facilitating laparoscopic spleen-preserving splenic LN dissection.

Laparoscopic spleen-preserving No. 10 lymph node dissection for advanced proximal gastric cancer in left approach: a new operation procedure

Background

To explore the feasibility of laparoscopic spleen-preserving No. 10 lymph node dissection in a left-sided approach for advanced proximal gastric cancer.

Methods

The clinical data of 32 patients with advanced proximal gastric cancer who underwent laparoscopic spleen-preserving No. 10 lymph node dissection from June 2010 to December 2011 were analyzed.

Results

Laparoscopic spleen-preserving No. 10 lymph node dissection using a left-sided approach was successfully performed for all patients without open conversion. The mean operation time was 206.4±54.3 minutes, mean intraoperative blood loss was 68.2±34.1 ml, mean number of No. 10 lymph nodes dissected was 2.8±2.1, mean number of positive No. 10 lymph nodes was 0.6±1.2, and the incidence of No. 10 lymph node metastasis was 11.6%. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 11.3±1.5 days. The postoperative morbidity rate was 9.4%, and there was no postoperative death. Splenic lobar vessels of all 32 patients were anatomically classified and divided into three types: 4 patients had a single lobar vessel, 22 had two lobar vessels and 6 had three lobar vessels.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic spleen-preserving No. 10 lymph node dissection for advanced proximal gastric cancer using a left-sided approach is technically feasible. It simplifies the complicated surgical procedure of No. 10 lymph node dissection and leads to the popularization and promotion of this technique.

The significance of splenectomy for advanced proximal gastric cancer. Int J Surg Oncol. 2012;2012:301530. [PMID: 22685639 PMCID: PMC3364576 DOI: 10.1155/2012/301530]

Objectives. The significance of splenectomy in advanced proximal gastric cancer is examined retrospectively. Methods. From 1994 to 2004, 505 patients with advanced proximal gastric cancer underwent curative total gastrectomy with preserving spleen (T) for 264 patients and total gastrectomy with splenectomy (ST) for 241 patients. Results. Patients who underwent splenectomy showed more advanced lesions. The metastatic rate of lymph node (LN) in the splenic hilus (No. 10) in ST was 18.3%. As for the incidence of surgical complications, there was not statistically difference except for pancreatic fistula. The index of estimated benefit of (No. 10) LN was 4.2, which was similar to that of (No. 9), (No. 11p), (No. 11d), and (No. 16) LNs. 5-year survival rate of (No. 10) positive group was 22.2%. 5-year survival rates of pSE and pN2 in T group were better than that of pSE and pN2 in ST, respectively. The superiority of ST was not confirmed even in Stage II, IIIA, and IIIB. Conclusion. Splenectomy was not effective for patients with (No. 10) metastasis in long-term survival. Spleen-preserving total gastrectomy will be feasible and be enough to accomplish radical surgery for locally advanced proximal gastric cancer.

Gastric adenocarcinoma surgery and adjuvant therapy

Gastric adenocarcinoma is one of the most common causes of death worldwide. Surgical resection remains the mainstay of therapy, offering the only chance for complete cure. Resection is based on the principles of obtaining adequate margins, with the extent of lymphadenectomy remaining controversial. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies are used to reduce local recurrence and improve long-term survival. This article reviews the literature and provides a summary of surgical management options and neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies for gastric adenocarcinoma.

Meta-analysis of D1 versus D2 gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2011;253:900-911. [PMID: 21394009 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e318212bff6]

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and drawbacks of limited (D1) versus extended lymphadenectomy (D2) for proven gastric adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

A search of Cochrane, Medline, PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index and Current Contents electronic databases identified randomized controlled trials published in the English language between 1980 and 2008 comparing the outcomes of D1 versus D2 gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses statement. The 6 outcome variables analyzed included length of hospital stay; overall complication rate; anastomotic leak rate; reoperation rate; 30-day mortality rate and 5-year survival rate. Random effects meta-analyses were performed using odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD).

RESULTS

Six trials totaling 1876 patients (D1 = 946, D2 = 930) were analyzed. In 5 of the 6 outcomes the summary point estimates favored D1 over D2 group with a statistically significant reduction of (i) 6.37 days reduction in hospital stay (WMD -6.37, confidence interval [CI] -10.66, -2.08, P = 0.0036); (ii) 58% reduction in relative odds of developing postoperative complications (OR 0.42, CI 0.27, 0.66, P = 0.0002); (iii) 60% reduction in anastomotic breakdown (OR 0.40, CI 0.25, 0.63, P = 0.0001); (iv) 67% reduction in reoperation rate (OR 0.33, CI 0.15, 0.72, P = 0.006); and (v) 41% reduction in 30-day mortality rate (OR 0.59, CI 0.40, 0.85, P = 0.0054). Lastly there was no significant difference in the 5-year survival (OR 0.97, CI 0.78, 1.20, P = 0.7662) between D1 and D2 gastrectomy patients.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of this meta-analysis we conclude that D1 gastrectomy is associated with significant fewer anastomotic leaks, postoperative complication rate, reoperation rate, decreased length of hospital stay and 30-day mortality rate. Finally, the 5-year survival in D1 gastrectomy patients was similar to the D2 cohort.

Effectiveness and safety of splenectomy for gastric carcinoma: A meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the impact of splenectomy on long-term survival, postoperative morbidity and mortality of patients with gastric cancer by performing a meta-analysis.

METHODS: A search of electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials in The Cochrane Library trials register, Medline, CBMdisc (Chinese Biomedical Database) and J-STAGE, etc was performed. Data was extracted from the studies by 2 independent reviewers. Outcome measures were survival, postoperative morbidity and mortality and operation-related events. The meta-analyses were performed by RevMan 4.3.

RESULTS: Three studies comprising 466 patients were available for analysis, with 231 patients treated by gastrectomy plus splenectomy. Splenectomy could not increase the 5-year overall survival rate [RR = 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97-1.41]. The postoperative morbidity (RR = 1.76, 95% CI 0.82-3.80) or mortality (RR = 1.58, 95% CI 0.45-5.50) did not suggest any significant differences between the 2 groups. No significant differences were noted in terms of number of harvested lymph nodes, operation time, length of hospital stay and reoperation rate. Subgroup analyses showed splenectomy did not increase the survival rate for proximal and whole gastric cancer. No obvious differences were observed between the 2 groups when stratified by stage. Sensitivity analyses indicated no significant differences regarding the survival rates (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Splenectomy did not show a beneficial effect on survival rates compared to splenic preservation. Routinely performing splenectomy should not be recommended.

[Surgical treatment of gastric carcinoma]

The gastric cancer is the most common cancer in Korea. The only treatment modality showing improved survival for gastric cancer is curative surgical resection, which comprises the resection of stomach, proper lymphadenectomy, and reconstruction. However, specific surgical procedures should be decided according to the location of the cancer, advancement of the tumor, and patients condition. Surgical treatment for gastric cancer has been developed toward two directions that are minimal invasive surgery for early gastric cancer and multi-disciplinary approach for advanced gastric cancer. Laparoscopic surgery for early gastric cancer has been accepted for minimally invasive surgery. Moreover, the advancement of diagnostic tools to assess biological aggressiveness of the tumor enables physicians to perform endoscopic resection or minimized resection for early gastric cancer. Recently, surgeons try to extend the application of laparoscopic gastric resection and D2 lymphadenectomy to advanced gastric cancer. However, technical and oncological evidences based on clinical trials should be filed up before adopting it as a standard therapy. In case of advanced gastric cancer, in addition to radical surgery, various treatment modalities including chemotherapy, radiation, and molecular target therapy also have been applied in many clinical trials. However, it should be stressed that a prerequisite for precise evaluation of the efficacy of these combined treatment modalities would be the standardization of surgical procedure.

The effect of spleen-preserving lymphadenectomy on surgical outcomes of locally advanced proximal gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of D2 lymphadenectomy with spleen preservation on surgical outcomes in locally advanced proximal gastric cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2000 and December 2004, a total of 366 patients who underwent curative total gastrectomy were studied retrospectively from a prospectively designed database.

RESULTS

The spleen-preservation group experienced shorter operation times, a lower incidence of perioperative transfusion, and shorter postoperative hospital stays. Perioperative transfusion and splenectomy were independent risk factors for morbidity. There was no significant difference between the two groups in recurrence or cumulative survival rate when adjusted according to cancer stage. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor size, serosal invasion, and nodal metastasis were independent prognostic factors, while splenectomy was not. The cumulative survival rate in pN0-status patients was significantly higher in the spleen-preservation group, while there was no significant difference in the survival of pN1- or pN2-status patients between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Splenectomy for lymph node dissection in proximal gastric cancer patients obviously showed poor short-surgical outcomes, but it did not affect long-term outcomes in terms of recurrence and overall survival rate. Therefore, spleen-preserving lymphadenectomy is a feasible method for radical surgery in locally advanced proximal gastric cancer.

Modified radical lymphadenectomy without splenectomy in patients with proximal gastric cancer: comparison with standard D2 lymphadenectomy for distal gastric cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

We assessed the optimal extent of lymph node dissection and the effect of splenectomy in patients with proximal gastric cancer.

METHOD

Recurrence and survival rates were compared between 881 patients with proximal gastric cancer who underwent modified radical lymphadenectomy and 3,098 patients with distal gastric cancer who underwent standard D2 lymphadenectomy.

RESULTS

The recurrence rate was significantly higher in the total than in the distal gastrectomy group (32.5% vs. 16.5%, P < 0.001), but the rates were similar after adjustment for TNM stage. The overall 5-year survival rate was significantly higher in the distal than in the total gastrectomy group (80.4% vs. 66.2%, P < 0.001), but this difference was not observed after adjustment for TNM stage. Multivariate analysis showed that patient age, number of retrieved lymph nodes, depth of invasion, and nodal metastasis were independent prognostic determinants for survival, whereas type of lymphadenectomy was not.

CONCLUSION

Long-term outcomes were similar in patients with proximal gastric cancer who underwent modified lymphadenectomy without splenectomy and in patients with distal gastric cancer who underwent standard D2 lymphadenectomy. These findings indicate that modified radical lymphadenectomy without splenectomy is sufficient for optimal lymph node dissection in patients with proximal gastric cancer.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic gastrectomy with D2 dissection for adenocarcinoma: initial experience with 17 patients

Robot-assisted gastrectomy has been practised so far in very few centres in the world. The aims of this study were to assess the feasibility of robot-assisted gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma with D2 lymph nodal dissection and to analyze our preliminary results. Between January 2006 and August 2008, as many as 17 patients (11 females, 6 males) underwent laparoscopic robot-assisted surgery for non-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach by a 3-armed da Vinci(®) Robotic Surgical System. The mean age of patients was 65.9 years. This series included eight patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) and nine with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). A 4/5 laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LSG) with D2 nodal clearance was the procedure of choice for 16 distal cancers. Laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG) with D2 lymphadenectomy was performed for one AGC of the middle third of the stomach. No intraoperative complication was registered. Conversion to laparotomy was required in two patients with distal cancer. The mean operating time (excluding converted patients) was 352 min (348 for LSG). Morbidity consisted in one pancreatic leak that healed conservatively. One death occurred postoperatively for haemorragic stroke. On average, 25.5 ± 4 lymph nodes were collected (range 10-40). The resection margin was 6.4 ± 0.6 cm (range 4.2-8), and the margin was tumour free in all the specimens. The mean hospital stay of totally laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy was 10 ± 1.2 days (range 8-13). The mean follow-up was 14 months (range 1-29) and three patients with AGC showed recurrence after LSG and died of disease. Robotics in gastrectomy for cancer is a feasible and safe procedure, yielding adequate D2 nodal clearance with respect of oncologic principles. Robotic techniques can represent a remarkable tool to improve laparoscopic surgeon's ability and precision in small surgical fields, i.e. during D2 dissection. This study demonstrated the feasibility of robot-assisted gastrectomy for cancer although further studies are required to validate our preliminary results, especially as far as patients' benefits are concerned.

Impact of splenectomy on surgical outcome in patients with cancer of the distal esophagus and gastro-esophageal junction

We aim to determine the effect of splenectomy on clinical outcome in patients with cancer of the distal esophagus and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) after a curative intended resection. From January 1991 to July 2004, 210 patients underwent a potentially curative gastroesophageal resection with an extended nodal dissection. The study group was divided into: group I with splenectomy, consisting of 66 patients (31.4%), and group II without splenectomy, of 144 patients. Splenectomy was performed for oncological reasons. Medical records were reviewed retrospectively. Postoperative complications occurred in 27 patients (40.9%) in group I and in 68 patients (47.2%) in group II (P = 0.4). The overall mortality was not significantly different between both groups (P = 0.7). There was a higher administration of red blood cells during surgery (P < or = 0.001), increased operating room (OR) time (P < or = 0.001) and longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay (P = 0.01) in group I. Independent prognostic factors for survival were outcome of surgery, nodal metastases, gender, complications and ICU stay. Sepsis was a strong prognostic factor among the complications. The 1 and 2-year survival was significantly higher in group II; 75% and 67% (P = 0.032) compared to 69% and 56% (P = 0.017) in group I, respectively. However, the 5-year survival was not different in both groups (29% in group I and 60% in group II, P = 0.191). Splenectomy had no marked effect on mortality and morbidity after curative resection of esophageal cancer. Splenectomy had a significant increase in blood transfusions with prolonged OR time and ICU stay and decreased short-term survival.

Lymph node dissection around the splenic artery and hilum in advanced middle third gastric carcinoma

AIM

To evaluate the clinicopathological factors influencing lymph node metastasis around the splenic artery and hilum and the effect of spleen-preserved lymphadenectomy in advanced middle third gastric carcinoma.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 131 patients with advanced middle third gastric carcinoma who had received D2 lymphadenectomy and lymph node dissection around the splenic artery and hilum, from 2000 to 2004. Of these patients, 62 simultaneously underwent splenectomy and 69 underwent spleen-preserved lymphadenectomy.

RESULTS

The incidences of Nos. 10 and 11 lymph node metastases were 21% and 15%, respectively, in advanced middle third gastric carcinoma. A tumor size larger than 5 cm, metastases of Nos. 1 and 7-9 lymph node were independent risk factors for metastasis of No. 10 and/or No. 11 lymph node. The spleen-preserved group had a slightly better survival rate and a relatively lower rate of postoperative complications than the splenectomy group. No. 10 and/or No. 11 lymph node metastasis was an independent prognostic factor, while splenectomy was not.

CONCLUSIONS

It is necessary to remove the lymph nodes around the splenic artery and hilum to achieve radical resection in advanced middle third gastric carcinoma patients with risk factors. Our results demonstrate that spleen-preserved lymphadenectomy is a good option for those patients.

Standard D2 versus extended D2 (D2+) lymphadenectomy for gastric cancer: an interim safety analysis of a multicenter, randomized, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

A multicenter, randomized, clinical trial was initiated to evaluate the possible benefits of extended D2 (D2+) lymphadenectomy after potentially curative resection of gastric cancer.

METHODS

Standard D2 lymphadenectomy was defined according to the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association classification. D2+ lymph node dissection additionally included the removal of para-aortic nodes.

RESULTS

Of 781 patients screened, 275 were randomized to standard D2 (n = 141) or extended D2+ (n = 134) lymphadenectomy. The overall morbidity rates were comparable in D2 (27.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 20.3-35.1) and D2+ (21.6%; 95% CI, 13.7-29.5) groups (P = .248). Pre-existing cardiac disease, splenectomy, and excessive blood loss were identified as risk factors for overall and nonsurgical complications. Postoperative mortality rates were 4.9% (95% CI, 1.4-8.5) and 2.2% (95% CI, 0-4.7), respectively (P = .376).

CONCLUSIONS

The interim safety analysis failed to show any significant difference with regard to the extent of lymph node dissection. The surgical outcome was not different between the 2 surgeries.

Randomized clinical trial of splenectomy versus splenic preservation in patients with proximal gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Preservation or removal of the spleen during total gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer is a matter of debate.

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial included patients with gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent total gastrectomy either with (104 patients) or without (103) splenectomy. Postoperative outcome in the two groups was compared, including morbidity, mortality and survival.

RESULTS

Gastrectomy combined with splenectomy tended to be associated with slightly higher morbidity and mortality rates, a slightly greater incidence of lymph node metastasis at the splenic hilum and along the splenic artery, and marginally better survival, but there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. Splenectomy had no impact on survival in patients with metastatic lymph nodes at the hilum of the spleen or in those with metastatic lymph nodes along the splenic artery.

CONCLUSION

These results do not support the use of prophylactic splenectomy to remove macroscopically negative lymph nodes near the spleen in patients undergoing total gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer.

Impact of splenectomy on circulating T-lymphocyte subsets in stage III gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The role of splenectomy remains unclear in patients with gastric cancer who undergo total gastrectomy. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the impact of splenectomy on circulating T-lymphocyte subsets and survival in advanced gastric cancer.

METHODS

Analysis of lymphocyte subsets was performed in 40 patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage III gastric adenocarcinoma located on the upper one-third of the stomach, who underwent a curative total gastrectomy with or without splenectomy. Circulating T-lymphocyte subsets were measured on venous blood by using flow cytometry and monoclonal antibodies at preoperative day 1, and postoperative months 1, 3, 6, 12 and 18.

RESULTS

The proportion of lymphocytes and the values of CD3, CD8, CD16 and CD25 subsets were higher in the splenectomy group of patients at postoperative month 3. In the spleen preservation group at the same point of treatment, the proportion of granulocytes and the values of CD4 and CD4 : CD8 ratio were higher. Except for CD16 levels, all T-lymphocyte subsets showed no significant difference between splenectomy and spleen preservation groups after postoperative month 3. Increased CD16 levels in the splenectomy group were not associated with improvement in patients' 5-year survival rates.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the long-term impact of splenectomy does not play an important role in postoperative quantitative changes of circulating T-lymphocyte subsets of patients with stage III gastric cancer who have undergone total gastrectomy. Furthermore, splenectomy does not give a prognostic benefit, based on tumour recurrence and survival of patients with proximal one-third gastric cancer who undergo total gastrectomy.

A prospective randomized study comparing D2 total gastrectomy versus D2 total gastrectomy plus splenectomy in 187 patients with gastric carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Classic surgical treatment of upper third gastric carcinoma is based on an extended total gastrectomy, including splenectomy. The purpose of this study was to perform a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the early and late results of total gastrectomy (TG) versus total gastrectomy plus splenectomy (TGS).

METHODS

One hundred eighty-seven patients with gastric carcinoma were included. In all patients a D2 total gastrectomy was performed. During surgery they were randomized to 1 of 2 operative options. They were monitored to their death or to 5 years later if they were alive.

RESULTS

Operative mortality was similar after both operations (3% after TG and 4% after TGS). Septic complications after surgery were higher after TGS compared with TG (P <.04). Five-year survival rates were not statistically different between groups or in subset analysis according to stage of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the results of the present prospective randomized trial, splenectomy is not necessary in early stages of disease. A low operative mortality rate (less than 3%) must be achieved to obtain good long-term results.

Risk factors for complications following resection of large gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

Although there is a low mortality rate after gastrectomy in Japan, most studies include many early gastric cancers. There have been few studies on the morbidity after gastrectomy for advanced gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to clarify the characteristics and risk factors for postoperative complications after resection of large gastric cancers based on three clinical factors: patient, operation and tumour.

METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out on 97 patients with a gastric tumour measuring 10 cm or more in diameter. Postoperative complications were recorded and the patients were divided into two groups: 38 with complications and 59 without. Patient, operative and tumour findings were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity and mortality rates were 39 and 7 per cent respectively. The most frequent complication was pleural effusion (17 per cent), followed by anastomotic leakage (14 per cent), abdominal abscess (12 per cent), wound infection (12 per cent), pancreatic leakage (8 per cent) and peritonitis (6 per cent). Risk factors associated with postoperative complications were operating time (400 versus 337 min, P < 0.01), blood loss (1338 versus 782 ml, P < 0.01), pancreatic invasion (26 versus 8 per cent, P < 0.05) and raised serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level (5 ng/ml or greater) (36 versus 17 per cent, P < 0.05), independent of patient age, nutritional status, type of gastrectomy, splenectomy or pancreatectomy, extent of lymph node dissection, tumour location, size and stage of disease.

CONCLUSION

Even in Japan, the morbidity of gastrectomy for large gastric cancer is high and associated with operating time, blood loss, pancreatic invasion and serum CEA level.

Current status and future perspectives in gastric cancer management

Gastric cancer is still a major health problem and a leading cause of cancer mortality despite a worldwide decline in incidence. Environmental and Helicobacter pylori (Hp) acting early in life in a multistep and multifactorial process may cause intestinal type carcinomas, whereas genetic abnormalities are related more to the diffuse type of disease. Primarily due to early detection of the disease, the results of treatment for gastric cancer have improved in Japan, Korea and several specialized Western centres. Surgery offers excellent long-term survival results for early gastric cancer (EGC). Advances in diagnostic and treatment technology have contributed to a trend towards minimal invasive surgery such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and laparoscopic surgery for selected mucosal cancers. In the Western world, however, more than 80% of patients at diagnosis have an advanced gastric cancer with a poor prognosis. The aim of surgery is complete removal of the tumour (UICC R0-resection), which is known to be the only proven, effective treatment modality and the most important treatment-related prognostic factor. Gastrectomy with preservation of the spleen and pancreas in most cases is the standard procedure. However, at present there is no consensus about the optimal extent of lymph-node dissection. The hypothesis that extended (D2) lymph-node dissection leads to improved survival has not been confirmed in randomized trials. Results from specialized centres and ongoing multi-institutional randomized trials, however, indicate that D2 dissection, with preservation of the spleen and pancreas, can be performed with the same safety as a D1 dissection. Furthermore, in 50% of patients with node-positive disease, the extraperigastric N2 nodes are involved (N2 disease) and thus an R0-resection is achievable only by a D2 node dissection resulting in a 5-year survival of about 30% for such patients. However, even after a D2 node dissection with curative potential, disease recurs in two-thirds of patients with locally advanced gastric cancer (LAGC) and is rapidly fatal. The need for an adjuvant treatment is obvious, but at present there is no such treatment of proven effectiveness. Promising results with preoperative chemotherapy, which increases the R0-resection rate, and intra-or early postoperative intraperitoneal chemohyperthermia to prevent peritoneal dissemination have been reported. However, randomized trials are necessary before these combined treatments become widely accepted. Present data indicate that the treatment of gastric cancer has become more and more sophisticated with a tailored therapy for individual cases. Treatment includes a broad spectrum of therapeutic options from EMR for selected mucosal cancers to aggressive combined treatment for LAGC. Precise knowledge of patterns of recurrence and metastases, critical evaluation of clinicopathologic variables, integration of high technology into diagnosis to predict accurately pre-treatment staging, and the surgeon's ability to perform minimally invasive surgery and D2 node dissection technique are necessary for an appropriate treatment option. All these prerequisites are best ensured by management in experienced surgical oncology units.

Survival benefit of D2 lympadenectomy in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

A definite resolution to the controversy on the optimal extension of lymph node dissection (LND) in gastric cancer has not been achieved. Surgical morbidity and survival of D1 and D2 LND are compared by multivariate analysis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 219 patients with gastric cancer and curative resection performed according to Japanese rules. D1 dissection was performed in 106 cases and D2 in 113. The logistic regression model was used to define risk factors for surgical morbidity and the Cox model to determine prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Surgical morbidity occurs in 16.9% and 19.5% in D1 and D2 LND, respectively (P = .7). The morbidity determinants were operation blood loss, splenectomy, pancreaticosplenectomy, antrum location, low serum albumin, total gastrectomy, and metastatic nodal ratio (P < .0001), but not D2 LND. Five-year survival was 35.1% for D1 and 64% for D2 LND (P < .039). The prognostic factors were T stage, N stage, serum albumin level, total gastrectomy, D2 LND, and comorbidity (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The increment of surgical morbidity and mortality rates attributed to D2 LND is largely caused by the effect of splenectomy and pancreaticosplenectomy. A significant survival benefit because of D2 LND was found. The results support the value of extended LND in the surgical treatment of gastric cancer.

Current advances and changes in treatment strategy may improve survival and quality of life in patients with potentially curable gastric cancer

BACKGROUND

The treatment strategy for gastric cancer is determined by the stage of disease. Advances in diagnostic techniques such as endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and in staging have increased the accuracy of pretreatment staging. Correct staging is a prerequisite for the optimal treatment of gastric cancer patients. Long-term expected survival and quality of life (QOL) are the major criteria determining the therapeutic strategy.

RESULTS

Surgical resection offers excellent survival rates for early gastric cancer (EGC) patients. D1 resection is sufficient for mucosal cancers (T1m) and for most submucosal cancers (Tlsm); however, for the rest (about 5%) of these patients with N2 disease a D2 resection is required for complete tumor resection (R0). Considering QOL, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or laparoscopic wedge resection is the best front-line therapy for several mucosal cancers. Prediction and selection of node-negative patients with the help of certain macroscopic and histologic criteria can eliminate the possibility for residual disease in perigastric lymph nodes. However, long-term survival data are needed before these new techniques become more generally accepted. In contrast, an aggressive approach is necessary for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. Total gastrectomy, with the exception of distal tumors that can be treated by subtotal gastrectomy, is the procedure of choice. Splenectomy is indicated for proximal advanced tumors. Distal pancreatectomy should be avoided, however, because its adverse effect has been documented in all randomized trials. Although the survival benefit of extended (D2) lymphadenectomy is unproven in randomized trials, D2 resection increases the R0 resection rate and may improve survival in some selected node-positive patients. D2 resection has little effect on preventing peritoneal tumor spread and liver metastasis, and the traditional late administration of chemotherapeutic drugs has been proven ineffective. Current data suggest a possible beneficial effect of combined treatment for patients with local advanced gastric cancer (LAGC). Ongoing phase-III randomized trials will prove whether patients with LAGC treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus D2 resection versus surgery alone or surgery plus intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy derive any benefit from these combined treatment modalities.

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of all information concerning tumor stage, location, histologic type, expected survival, and QOL after resection is of paramount importance for the surgeon planning the extent of surgery. The therapeutic approach should be stratified according to the stage of disease.